Testimony of Dr. William Dolan in the Trial of Lizzie Borden
June 12-13, 1893

I have practiced medicine in Fall River for eleven years; received my education in the medical department of the University of Pennsylvania.  I have been in general practice, with probably more surgery than medicine. Have had several cases of fracture of the skull. Have been medical examiner for Bristol County for two years; for one year, when these murders took place. Arrived at the Borden house about 11:45 A.M. Noted the striking of the city hall clock at twelve, and had then been in the house ten to fifteen minutes. Saw Charles Sawyer at the door; Dr Bowen, Bridget, Mr. Morse, Mrs. Churchill, Miss Russell, and several officers.

Had a brief talk later in the day with Miss Lizzie Borden in her room. Asked her what it was about that note Mrs. Borden was said to have received, and she said Mrs. Borden had received a note to go and see somebody that was sick. Asked her where the note was. She said she didn't know. She said that probably Mrs. Borden had burned it in the kitchen stove. That is all I remember of our talk.  When I entered the house, I went into the kitchen and then to the sitting room. The body of Mr. Borden was lying on the sofa. Sofa was against the north wall of the room, running east and west, with the head towards the parlor and the feet towards the kitchen, that is, towards the east. The sofa was against the jamb of the dining-room door. The body was covered with a sheet. Dr Bowen was with me. I found that Mr. Borden's hand was warm; the blood was oozing from his wounds and was bright red in color. The head was resting on a sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there. And the coat, in turn, rested on an afghan or sofa cover. I made no particular examination of the wounds then; only stayed two or three minutes; went upstairs to see Mrs. Borden. She was lying between the dressing case and the bed. I touched the body, noted the wounds on the back of her head; noted that her blood was coagulated and of a dark color. She was lying with her back exposed; her hands were nearer the wall than her head; they were not clasped. The upper part of her dress, the waist, was bloody. I found an old silk handkerchief there and took it with me. It was nearer the wall than the head. It was not cut, but it was bloodstained. [Witness identifies the handkerchief.] I was there, examining the body, for only two or three minutes. When I saw Mr. Borden I had a clinical thermometer with me, but I did not use it. At Mr. Borden's head, the blood was dripping on the carpet underneath. There were two blood spots on the carpet, about eight or ten inches in diameter.

Turning back to Mrs. Borden's body, I felt of that with my hand; touched her head and hand; it was much colder than that of Mr. Borden.  Did not use thermometer. Her blood on the head was matted and practically dry. There was no oozing from it, as in Mr. Borden's.  I returned downstairs and made a more careful observation of Mr. Borden's wounds. At that time I counted from eight to ten; I made a more accurate examination later.  He was clad in a cardigan-a woolen-jacket, black vest, black trousers and a pair of Congress shoes. He had a watch and pocketbook; the money in the pocketbook amounted to [referring to notes] $81.65-four ten-dollar bills; five fives; one two-dollar bill; eleven ones; and in his pocket, two fifty-cent pieces; three twenty-five cent pieces; six tens; five five-cent pieces; and five copper cents. He wore a ring, I think a gold ring on his left hand.  Went upstairs again, and with Dr Bowen's assistance lifted Mrs. Borden's body sufficiently to make a preliminary count of her wounds; then collected from Bridget a sample of the morning's milk and of yesterday's milk; sealed them and later sent them to Professor Wood. Went to the cellar; saw two axes and two hatchets; took the heavy claw-hammered one and put it with the cans of milk. Returned to the house that afternoon and had the rooms and the two bodies photographed.

I removed the stomachs from both bodies; tying each at both ends, and putting each into a clean jar which was sealed, labeled and, with the two jars of milk, sent by express to Professor Wood.

Next day I examined with a magnifying glass the two hatchets at the city marshal's office. Found two hairs on one of them; put them on a piece of paper, then in an envelope and delivered them to Professor Wood. There were spots on the axes that looked like blood, or rust. I also delivered hatchets and axes to Professor Wood.

 On August 11, at the Oak Grove Cemetery, we made a thorough autopsy. Present were Dr Francis W. Draper of Boston, and Drs Cone and Leary of Fall River. Examined every organ of Mr. Borden's body; found them in healthy condition.

The wounds in the head were the cause of death; we made an examination of them.

[A plaster cast of a head, upon which the position of the wounds was marked in blue, was produced and handed to the witness.]
Q. We will take the head of Andrew J. Borden first. Is this the cast that you used to illustrate the wounds on Mr. Borden?
A. Yes.

Q. How many wounds did you find on his head?
A. Ten on the fleshy part.
Q. And what was the condition, generally speaking, of the skull of Mr. Borden as to being crushed in?
A. From in front of the ear, commencing about 1 1/2 inches in front of the ear, to probably 1 1/2 inches behind the ear, the bone was all crushed in.
Q. [Placing cast on its side on the rail in front of the stenographer's table] Now if you will let me rest it here. Now, then, go on and describe in detail the wounds that you found upon his head?
[The witness left the stand and took a position beside counsel to point out the position of the wounds upon the plaster cast.]
A. In taking this wound and counting that No. I-I do not mean to say that that is the first wound that is given, I simply take it to have some commencing point-this wound started in what we call the left nasal bone, that is, the left nose bone, and extended down through the fleshy part of the side of the nose, over the upper lip and the lower lip and chin, and cut slightly into the bone. That wound was 4 inches long.
Q. And how deep?
A. Well, cutting slightly into the bone. The other wound started here, at the angle of the eye-this is all the left side -commenced here at the angle of the eye and cut down through the flesh, down past the angle of the mouth and into the chin, and also cut slightly into the bone. That one was 4 1/2 inches long. That wound here over the eye-over the left eye, 2 inches above the left eyebrow-was a glancing wound, starting here and cutting out a piece of bone the size that you see marked there, cutting it right out from the skull. That is the wound there. This next wound ran into that, came down through the eye, and cut the eye completely in half and cut through the cheekbone, severing it, and ended just below the cheekbone. That wound was 4 1/2 inches long.

The next commenced about 2 1/2 inches above the eyebrow and to the outside of it. That one was 2 inches, cutting into the skull. The next was 1 inch to the left, and 1/2 inch long; it simply left its mark in the bone. The others went through into the brain. The two directly in front of the ear, and separated by about 1/2 inch, were 4 and 4 1/2 inches respectively, or 2 inches. One was 2 inches and the other 4 inches. The last one was 2 inches—that is, directly above the ear.

There were also some wounds that showed in the skull, but not in the fleshy part, possibly by the hatchet going into the same cuts, but not exactly underneath on the bone. There were no wounds on the body except those on the head.

Q. Which of them crushed the skull?
A. Those last four, and this one, of course, cut into the skull in front.
Q. Did you afterwards remove the skull?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And removed the flesh from the bone?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you have it in your possession?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? I will ask you this question. Perhaps my friends will know the reason I ask it in the form I do just now. What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? Does it in any way affect the integrity of the bone?
A. No sir.
Q. What is the thickness of the skull at the point where those four wounds went through into the brain?
A. About one sixteenth of an inch.
Q. Is it comparatively speaking a thin skull or not?
A. It is, yes.
Q. What is the thickness of that part of the skull in proportion to the rest of the skull?
A. I think the skull on top is a quarter of an inch.
Q. Which is the thinnest place on the skull?
A. Just this region, the temple region. 

At the same time, we made an examination of the intestines. The upper part of Mr. Borden's intestines was comparatively empty. In the upper part of Mrs. Borden's intestines was some undigested food.  On Mrs. Borden's body there was one wound on the back-at the juncture of the neck with the body, the lower part over the spine, and the upper part running upwards and downwards for 2 1/2 inches. All the other wounds were on the head. There were three contusions on the face: two over the left eye, and one just over the bridge of the nose. The right side of Mrs. Borden's head was crushed in; there was a hole there, 1 1/2 by 5 1/2 inches.  There was a scalp wound on the left side of the face; a flap wound, where the flesh was cut off, but not separated from the head; it was 2 inches long by 1 1/2 inch wide. On the left side of the middle line of the head, there were four wounds. Three of them went into the skull, one taking apiece right out of the skull. Two wounds simply left imprints on the head. Many of the wounds crushed through into the brain. They varied from 1/2 inch to 5 inches long. Altogether, eighteen wounds on her head.  With Mr. Seaver, I made a memorandum of the blood spots in the house. In the guest room there was one spot on the north wall 9 inches from the window and 2 1/2 inches from the floor. There was one spot 5 inches west of the dressing case and 16 1/2 inches from the floor.  There were about fifteen spots on one of the marbles of the dressing table. On the lower part of the dressing table about fifty spots; fifteen spots on the mirror. On the east wall seven spots. Downstairs in the sitting room, there was one, 3 feet 2 inches from the jamb of the dining-room door; the highest on the wall was 6 ft. 1 3/4 inches from the floor.  Back of the lounge, in a space 18 by 10 inches, there were eighty-six spots describing the arc of a circle. There were seven spots on the parlor door and three on the parlor-door jamb. There were forty spots on the picture and frame that hung over the lounge.

I removed the skull of Mrs. Borden also, and prepared it in the same way, and also without interfering with the integrity of the bone. It is slightly thicker than Mr. Borden's. Where the skull was crushed in, it is not over 1/8 inch thick. The wounds in her skull were made with some sharp cutting instrument, possibly a hatchet. I should say that a hatchet would be consistent with the nature of her wounds.

Q. In your opinion were the wounds that you found upon the skull of Mr. Borden such as could have been inflicted with a hatchet by a woman of ordinary strength?
A. Yes sir.

Taking all circumstances into consideration, including the condition of the blood and the heat of the bodies-everything that came to my attention during the examination on Thursday, the day of the murders-I formed the opinion that Mrs. Borden died first. I should say from 1 1/2 to 2 hours, or from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours.

And, further, assuming that these two persons ate at the same time before they were killed, and considering the conditions disclosed in the intestines of both, I conclude that digestion had ceased in Mr. Borden, and was still going on in Mrs. Borden. And, therefore, that she had died first. These conditions support the opinion I have already given.


Q. [By Mr. Adams] I do not understand, Doctor, that you received any message to take you to this house on the day of the tragedy?
A. No sir.
Q. But you were driving to your patients and going by this house?
A. That is it; yes sir.
Q. And saw something, which led you to get out and go in?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you fix the time when you got there as near or a trifle before twelve o'clock?
A. Quarter of twelve, about; yes sir.
Q. Would you insist on its being exactly fifteen minutes of twelve?
A. No sir; not exactly, I would not.
Q. It might be five minutes later?
A. Possibly it might have been that time.
Q. Haven't you said that you were calling upon a patient upon Third or Fourth Street, and you got there about 11:40 and stayed three or four minutes, and then drove around?
A. No sir; not as late as that, I don't think.

When I went into the guest chamber to view Mrs. Borden's body, the room surely was not dark. The shutter on the north window was open.  I did not know then that Patrolman Doherty had lifted the body. I know it now. I did not know that Dr Bowen had pulled out her right hand and felt of the wrist. I know it now. I did not know that Doherty had moved the bed, and I do not know it now. When I later measured the distance between the bed and the dressing table, where the body lay, I found it to be 37 inches. I did not tell you it was 2 feet or 2 feet 10 inches: I said a foot on either side of the body. There was enough room for a person to go between her and the bed.

[MR. ADAMS read from the testimony of Dr Dolan at the preliminary examination, as follows:

Q. In your opinion, would that hatchet that you saw furnish an adequate cause of these incised wounds?
A. Yes sir.
Q. The wounds in both cases?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now did you say that?
A. I said it if it is there; yes sir.
Q. Didn't I then have, or didn't you have in front of you, this hatchet with the claw head?
A. I don't know as to the presence of the hatchet, sir.
Q. At all events, it referred to that hatchet, didn't it?
A. Yes sir, it referred to that.
Q. Do you desire to change that opinion now?
A. I do; yes sir.
Q. In what respect?
A. That is, providing the cutting edge of that axe is a certain distance-a certain length.
Q. Hadn't you measured it at that time?
A. No sir, I had not.
Q. Have you measured it since?
A. No sir.
Q. Do you know what it is now?
A. I should judge about 4 1/2 inches by looking at it; I don't know.
Q. Were there any injuries upon the heads of either of these people that were more than 4 1/2 inches long?
A. Yes sir.
Q. On Mr. Borden there was one four and a half plus, wasn't there?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And on Mrs. Borden there was one five inches, wasn't there?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Wouldn't this hatchet then, adequately cause those?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And would the injuries that you found there, other than these two, not have been adequately caused by a cut from this instrument or one like it which did not meet the skull along the whole cutting edge?
A. State that again, please.

MR. ADAMS. I will let the stenographer read it; I don't think I can state it just the same again.

[The stenographer read the question.]

The WITNESS. I don't understand the question now.

[The question was read again.]

MR. KNOWLTON. I submit whether the questioner himself understands the question.
MR. ADAMS. I do. I understood one of yours a little while ago, that you had trouble about understanding yourself.
Q. Well, do you understand the question now?
A. If I may be permitted to state what I think the question is?
Q. Well, go on.
A. In other words, could the hatchet that made the other wounds on that head produce those two? Is that the substance of it?
Q. Yes sir.
A. It could.
Q. Did you subsequently have authority from the law officers of the state to make the second view, or attempt at an autopsy, or whatever it may be called?
A. I don't understand what you mean by "attempt at an autopsy."
Q. Or the completion of the autopsy.
A. If you mean the autopsy at Oak Grove Cemetery, yes sir.
Q. That was on the 11th day of August, the day the defendant was arrested, was it not?
A. I could not say as to the arrest.
Q. At all events, it was on the eleventh of August?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the Oak Grove Cemetery contains the family lot of this family?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Where the bodies had been taken for interment?
A. Yes sir.
Q. At that time did you remove something from the bodies?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You removed the skulls, the heads, didn't you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you notify these daughters, or any of them, that you were about to do it?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you notify anyone that you were about to do it, or cause that to be done?
A. No sir.
Q. When they were interred, did you give any information to them that the interment took place under such circumstances?
A. I did not.
Q. This second, or the Oak Grove autopsy, revealed to you some other appearances that you had not discovered in the first one, did it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. It revealed among other things, the blow in the back of Mrs. Borden?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Where was the assailant standing, in your opinion, when that blow was given?
A. In the rear.
Q. There was a flap cut here? [Indicating on forehead]
A. Yes sir.
Q. When that blow was given, where in your opinion did the assailant stand?
A. In front, facing the assaulted.
Q. That is, the assailant and assaulted faced each other?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you entertain the opinion that the bruises and contusions found on the forehead of Mrs. Borden were caused in any other way than by falling?
A. No sir.
Q. How many different marks, indicating separate blows, did you find on the head of Mrs. Borden?
A. Eighteen.
Q. Did Dr Frank W. Draper, of Boston, assist you in this Oak Grove autopsy?
A. He did.
Q. With the wound on the back there would be nineteen cutting injuries, which indicated so many separate blows?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now when these hatchets were seen by you and some of them were taken by you, did you then from your examination with a magnifying glass express the opinion that there was blood upon them?
A. No sir.
Q. You simply said, did you, that there were appearances that looked like blood?
A. Yes sir. If you will allow me I will make that statement.
Q. What statement?
A. About the hatchet. It has been ascribed to me that I swore that that hatchet was covered with blood.
MR. KNOWLTON. I object to that statement.
MR. ADAMS. It is your own witness.
MR. KNOWLTON. I object to the statement.
MR. ADAMS. [To the witness] You see that the counsel for the Government objects. While I have no objection, I doubt if you can go on.

Q. Did you at that time, namely, the time when these hatchets were seen by you in the cellar and handled by you, have the opinion that there was human hair on anyone of them?
A. Not in the cellar.
Q. Anywhere?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you at the marshal's office?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you entertain that opinion now?
A. No sir.
Q. Did you at that time have any opinion with reference to the condition of the samples of the milk that were obtained?
A. As to what?
Q. As to there being any foreign and poisonous substance in them?
A. I had no opinion on them.

[At 5.00 P.M. the Court adjourned to Tuesday morning, June 13th, at nine o'clock.]

New Bedford, June 13th, 1893.


Q. Have you an opinion as to where the assailant of Mr. Borden stood, taking into account the spots, which you saw?
A. I have.
Q. From the appearance of things, where did the assailant stand?
A.  Stood close behind the head of the lounge, that is, between the parlor door and the head of the lounge.
Q. You no longer, if you have ever put him there, make him stand in the dining-room door?
A. I never put him there.
Q. Did you ever have an opinion that one or more of these blows might have been given by a person reaching around the jamb of the dining-room door and striking the head?
A. Well, to stand even behind the dining-room door you would not have to reach around.
Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That is to say, it is a left-handed blow?
A. In what sense left-handed; delivered by the left hand?
Q. That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction-from left to right.
A. Yes sir, to a certain extent. Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.
Q. And those blows made quite as severe injuries as any?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the strongest left-handed blow, in your opinion, was the blow upon the eyebrow where that bone was chipped out?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In your opinion, would a strong and crushing blow not have been necessary to have made that?
A. No sir.
Q. A light blow, in your opinion, could have done that?
A. Not a light blow; no sir.
Q. A fairly strong blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was it a one-handed or a two-handed blow, in your opinion?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Have you any opinion about that?
A. I think one-handed could do it.
Q. Assuming that the carotid artery (which is the artery running up through the neck, here, and under the angle of the jaw) had been cut, would there be a large flow of blood?
A. It depends upon where it was cut, sir.
Q. Suppose it was the interior one; there are two of them, I believe, or two branches.
A. Even then it would depend upon where.
Q. Well, supposing it was cut near the angle of the jaw, would there be a large flow of blood immediately?
A. There would, immediately; a very large flow of blood.
Q. And if the assailant, using the instrument, which you have described, or a similar one, had cut that, would not it have been natural that the assailant would have been covered with blood or would have been spattered and sprinkled with blood?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. How do you explain that they would not have been?
A. Because it would not spurt in that direction.
Q. In what direction?
A. In the direction of the assailant.
Q. But when the hatchet goes into the wound, doesn't it get covered with blood, particularly the edge of it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And when it is covered with blood, which is fresh and warm, isn't it liable to come off in a swinging blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And isn't that liable to strike the assailant somewhere as he swings his blow from front to rear and rear to front?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And wouldn't you say it would be probable that the assailant would be covered with blood or have spatters upon him?
A. He would have spatters; yes sir.
Q. And in what part of the body, in the case of Mr. Borden, would these spatters come?
A. The upper part.
Q. That is, the head, the breast?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would the hands be liable to be spotted or spattered?
A. They might.
Q. Would not it be probable?
A. Probable.

[After an extended cross-examination as to the position of Mrs. Borden's body, the direction of the blows and the location of the blood spots, the examiner reached this question].

Q. Now taking the position of Mrs. Borden, the pillow shams, the bed spreads, the spots on the pillow sham, mirror and baseboard, where, in your opinion, did the assailant stand when inflicting this injury?
A. Astride the body.
Q. Did you say at the time when you got to the house how long in your opinion Mrs. Borden had been dead?
A. Did I say so then?
Q. Yes.
A. I have no recollection, sir.
Q. Is your opinion about the time of her death based upon what you saw there on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, haven't you said that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time you saw her?
A. I don't know whether I said it that way or whether I said an hour and a half before Mr. Borden. I am not sure, sir.
Q. But your opinion which you formed was made up of the appearances which you saw on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Didn't you testify about that at the other hearing in Fall River?
A. In what particulars?
Q. As to the time of her death.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Don't you recall that you said there that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time that you saw her body at the house?
A. As I say, I am not sure of making it that way.
Q. Let me read to you and see if this is what you said, page 105:

"From what you saw, and all you saw, did you form any opinion as to how long she had been dead when you found her?" Answer: "I couldn't say exactly how long she had been dead, but it was my impression she was dead anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half when I saw her."

Q. Did you say that?
A. I said it if it is there; yes sir.
Q. And you saw her in the vicinity of twelve o'clock?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So that the opinion which you formed then was that she died somewhere from half-past ten to eleven o'clock.
A. According to that statement, yes sir.
Q. Well, wasn't that statement your opinion?
A. Yes sir; at that time.
Q. Didn't you say you formed your opinion from what you saw at that time?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you desire to change that opinion now?
A. I don't know that I desire to change it, except that-since it is there of course I said that, but I hadn't the impression that I said it, just as I told you I hadn't the impression that I said it was from the time I saw her or from the contrasting of the deaths of the two bodies.
Q. What would you say now?
A. I will say, taking everything into consideration, what I saw then and what I have learned since by examination, that the difference between the deaths of the two bodies would be from an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. What other factor comes into your opinion?
A. The difference in the warmth of the bodies.
Q. Well, what is the common period of time assigned for the cooling of the body?
A. Well, anywhere from ten to twenty-four hours.
Q. Take the body of Mrs. Borden, who was a woman 60 odd years of age, weighing about 200 pounds, how long at that time do you think it would take for her body to cool, to become cold?
A. I don't know. Of course the external temperature would have something to do with it, but I am not prepared to say how long it would take for her body that particular day. As I say, all normal bodies differ very much in length of time.
Q. Can you give me any opinion as to the length of time?
A. I could not; no sir.
Q. Would there be any difference in the time between her body and Mr. Borden's, assuming both died at the same instant?
A. There would; yes sir.
Q. What difference would there be?
A. The difference would be that hers would be warmer than Mr. Borden's.
Q. That is to say, hers would be warm longer than his?
A. Be warm longer than his and warmer than his.
Q. Was there some other factor, the factor of digestion that came into your opinion?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, the stomach is a rebellious member of the body, isn't it, and often doesn't perform its duty well?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Even in people who are in comparative health?
A. That is a fact.
Q. So that food passes from the stomach into the intestines without always being digested, doesn't it?
A. Not in a normal stomach; no Sir.
Q. I know it. But assume that the stomach is not in a normal condition; that is, that one is suffering from indigestion.
A. Yes.
Q. And from that condition of body which is followed by summer sickness.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Under those circumstances would not food naturally pass from the stomach into the upper intestine without being fully digested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. If the person was in that condition could you safely express any opinion as to the length of time that the meal was taken before you saw the upper intestine?
A. No sir, not safely.
Q. That is, you couldn't form an opinion within some half hour or an hour, could you, of the time of the meal?
A. I hardly think you could.
Q. In other words, if a person had eaten breakfast at seven o'clock in the morning, and a day or two days before that had been ill and vomited up her food that day, and after breakfast at some time you found her dead with some undigested food in the lower intestine, could you tell from that fact alone, knowing also that they had been ill, how long before that they had eaten their morning meal?
A. Not accurately, no sir.
Q. I mean within half an hour or an hour? A. I don't think so.
Q. Well then, isn't the opinion, which you give as to how long before Mr. Borden died, Mrs. Borden died, one of speculation largely?
A. No sir. You mean, as far as the intestine is concerned?
Q. Yes.
A. It is not as marked, of course, as the temperature and the condition of the blood.
Q. On digestion alone how far will you go as to the difference of time in the death of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
A. Well, knowing that they had partaken of the same food, and knowing that both had been ill to a certain extent, and
Q. I am allowing you to answer, although you put in things that I did not put into my question. Go on.
A. I have to do that to make up my result.
Q. Go on.
A. And finding nothing in the upper bowel of one and something in the upper bowel of the other, I think it makes the thing equal; that is, their having eaten at the same time, and their having both been ill at the same time, I think it takes away considerable of the force of your question: could I tell by the intestines of Mrs. Borden that she had had breakfast within half an hour or an hour, that is, within half an hour or an hour's time. Taking those things into consideration, I think that it is not speculation to say that by her intestines you could say that digestion was still going on.
Q. I think my question was, within what period of time you would dare to give an opinion based upon the digestive appearances alone?
A. I misunderstood you. I thought you said was it speculation.
Q. Well, will you answer that question? I asked you before that about speculation. Will you answer that question?
A. I wouldn't say within half an hour, no sir.
Q. Assuming that one had been more ill than the other, that one had had a severer attack than the other, would it make any difference in that digestion?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. And would that interfere with the expression of an opinion with reasonable accuracy as to the length of time?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. Assuming that was the fact would you then fix the limit as more than half an hour?
A. No sir.
Q. You would still stick to your opinion that you could determine within half an hour the difference in time?
A. No sir, I would not.
Q. And I understand you to have already told me upon the coagulation of blood, you wouldn't dare after fifteen minutes to express an opinion, within fifteen minutes or half an hour as to the difference of time?
A. No sir, not to swear to it, I wouldn't.
Q. So that you have nothing left but the temperature of the body?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And that is tested simply by touch?
A. Yes sir.
Q. I neglected to ask you one question. When I was inquiring about the position of the assailant of Mrs. Borden, you told me, I think, that in your opinion the assailant stood astride of the body and over it.  If in that attitude the assailant stood, would there be a general spattering of blood over his body?
A. I don't know whether there would be a general one over the entire body. I think there would be surely some on the lower part of the body. 


Q. Something has been said, Doctor, about the capacity and different sizes of the hatchets, which inflicted the wounds, in respect to the length of them. You have testified, as I understand it, if I am in error you will correct me that these wounds varied from half an inch to four or more in length?
A. I have, yes sir.
Q. Would those lengths of themselves afford any indication, the exterior length of the wounds, afford any indication of the size in respect to the length of the weapon, which inflicted them?
A. I don't think so, no sir.
Q. Why not?
A. Simply that the coming down, taking the particular case, coming down on a hard surface they are liable to slide.
Q. Is there anything in the length of the wounds, which is inconsistent with their having been inflicted by a weapon, for example, of three and one half inches in length?
A. There is not, no sir.
Q. And why so? Explain why. How could a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a two-inch wound, for example?
A. Because the whole cutting edge wouldn't be brought into play at once.
Q. That is, didn't go through?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And how can a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a four-and-a-half-inch wound?
A. By sliding and by also going in underneath, that is, crushing into.
Q. And if it went, not vertically but at an angle, would that also have a tendency to make it?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. You spoke of the food in the intestines as undigested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What portion of the food in the intestines of Mrs. Borden was undigested?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. Was there anything in the appearance of what you found in the small intestines to indicate that there had been anything abnormal or irregular or showing disease of any kind in the operation of digestion?
A. No sir.
Q. So far as that indicated anything at all, did it appear whether or not the digestion had been normal?
A. It indicated nothing abnormal, no sir.
Q. Now, you said that there were back of the lounge eighty-six [blood] spots describing the arc of a circle. When was the last time that you saw them?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. How long after the homicide?
A. They were there; I think it was the 13th that I counted them.
Q. The 13th of what?
A. August.
Q. You say [they] formed a sort of arch. Can you tell what, in your opinion, caused that, spattering or spurting?
A. Spurting.
Q. Spurting is the force of the heart, of the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Spattering comes from contact of the instrument with the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Or dropping from the hatchet?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you find any other spurts besides those there that in your opinion formed that arch?
A. I did not. 


Q. [By Mr. Adams] From the appearance of an injury having various lengths like one, two, three, four or five inches you are hardly able to determine the length of the cutting edge giving them, are you?
A. No sir.
Q. Do the appearances disclosed by examination after death in reference to upper intestine aid you in forming any opinion at all about digestion?
A. It does, yes sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that indigestion is indicated by the appearance of the intestine itself?
A. Of course if the intestine was inflamed.
Q. Does inflammation indicate that a person has indigestion always?
A. No sir.
Q. In other words, one may have indigestion without inflammation of the intestine?
A. Yes sir.

Q. So that the appearance of the intestine would not necessarily help you in determining whether or not a person had poor digestion, or indigestion, not normal digestion?
A. No sir.

Trial of Lizzie Borden Homepage